Monday, February 26, 2018

911 Call Domestic Shooting Analysis


Police Chief shoots wife. 

This is a publicly released transcript.  

The following is a deeper analysis, including input from trained professionals from the Mesa, Arizona area.  During this training (Advanced Analysis:  Psycholinguistic profiling and Handwriting Analysis), the team worked through it with the same results as other teams, howbeit, increased depth.  

In Statement Analysis, we view the Expected versus the Unexpected in 911 calls. 


Linguistic Disposition in Statement Analysis

The linguistic disposition in a statement is critical to "getting inside" the mind of the subject (speaker) and to grasp his or her verbalized perception of reality.  We use this in many applications, including threatening anonymous letter author's identification. 

We are able to see how the author perceives the recipient, law enforcement and anyone else addressed in the letter. 

Domestic Shootings

 In a domestic shooting, how the caller relates to the victim is critically important.  He will either show a good relationship in the call, or he will show a troubled relationship.  

Presuppositional Thinking in Statement Analysis means going word by word, first, presuming innocence (de facto innocence, not judicial), seeing if the language "fits" or is appropriate. 


Then, re-do the analysis presupposing that the caller has had a domestic dispute with his wife and see if the language is fitting with this presupposition.  


The Expected Versus The Unexpected. 


We set up what we expect to hear from an innocent caller, who's wife has now accidentally been shot.  What do we expect to hear, in such a case as this?


It is expected that the caller will:


a. ask for help for the victim, specifically for the victim; not in general, and not for himself.  


b. show concern for the victim not for the caller himself.  His wife is, perhaps, mortally wounded, and we expect to hear him care only for her.  


c.  use direct language befitting an emergency not staged language for the recording.   This should sound like "excited utterance" and be helpful. 


Given that he is law enforcement, we expect him to not only answer the questions, but to offer relevant information to the operator.  


Remember, this is an Interview.  The 911 operator is asking questions because she needs information.  


In every interview, there is an impression:


Either the subject is working with the Interviewer to get the information, or the subject is showing resistance or reluctance, to impede the flow of information.  This also can be where the subject impedes information by using tangents or avoidance.  A 911 call is an interview in which we expect the caller to work with the operator to facilitate information to save the victim.  


Professional Training

Law enforcement is trained and trained repeatedly.  This is for the purpose of overcoming natural instinctive reactions, including self preservation. If a law enforcement officer were to go on his or her own instincts, rather than training, every traffic stop would be conducted with a firearm unholstered. The danger is acute.  

By approaching a vehicle with gun drawn, professionals know that this increases the tension on both the officer and the civilian.  Following this protocol of passively approaching the vehicle is part of training which increases the risk to the officer, while reducing the tension of the civilian. The civilian is already agitated at the prospect of a ticket.   The best and brightest diffuse and deescalate situations. 

When we speak, we reveal ourselves:

1.  Our Backgrounds, sex, age, etc. 
2.  Our Experiences, such as police training in this caller
3.  Our Priority:  here, to get the victim immediate medical intervention 
4.  Our dominant personality traits. 

The longer the statement the more of these four basic elements is revealed.  

It is expected that a police chief will be impacted by his decades of training and experience in this call. 

 Passive Language:  passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility. We note passivity (or "passive voice" in lengthier communication) as either appropriate or inappropriate.  

In an accidental shooting, it would be expected about the gun going off, but nothing else.  If there is passivity, it must be noted.  The passivity should not be coupled with distancing language, since passivity already shows distance. 

Police Officers' Wives and Family 

The social introduction is key to understanding the relationship at the time of the statement.  Even in the same statement, it can change.  It gives us insight into what the subject (caller) is thinking.  It is his "linguistic disposition" towards his wife, in this call, in the specific context of the sentence.  


If he and his wife fought, and this caused him to threaten her, perhaps, and the "gun went off", we may see him distance himself from his wife by avoiding her name, coupled with her title:  "my wife______"


I expect him to say anything similar to this:  "This is William McCollom, I just shot my wife, Margaret by accident.  She needs help." and give the address.  Then he will offer her medical condition and what he has done thus far to preserve her life.   



Police Chief William McCollom's 911 call analyzed.  






911: Fayette county 911, what’s the address of your 

emergency?

Chief: 103 Autumn Leaf.



Here we note that the caller answers the question.  This may 

be as a result of his training.  Thus far, in posing this

question to male married police officers, all have stated that 

they would blurt out what happened, as getting to the detail

of his wife's status is critical. 

Yet, we will not flag this for withholding information, but 

will wait for the caller to identify what is wrong with his 

wife.  We trust that he has a great deal of First Aid training

and has begun the care.  We expect he will, however, 

quickly get the information to the Operator:

a.  What happened 

b.  What his wife's current medical state is, with both 

being told immediately as a priority of urgency.  We do 

not listen for urgency in his voice.  Many professionals 

rise to an occasion while deceptive people may attempt to

persuade audibly how much they "care" for the victim.  

"I shot my wife by accident, she is bleeding from..." remains 

the expectation of priority. 

The caller does not offer to the Operator why he is calling, 

therefore, she asks:  




911: What’s going on there?


Chief: Uh, gunshot wound…accidental. Need medical asap.

What does he report?

He reports that there is a gunshot wound. 

He reports the word "accidental."

He reports a need for medical as soon as possible. 


Note the order shows priority.  

1.  Gunshot wound is the wound, itself. 

2.  Accidental is second

3.  Help is third. 

It leaves us with more questions.  

Who is shot?

Who is the shooter?

What is the medical need?

The caller's experience indicates he knows dispatch has

begun.

It is challenging at first, but we train investigators to not 

interpret one's words; but to listen. 

We need to hear him give information rather than for him 

to raise more questions. 


Gunshot Wound is first, and not his wife. 


Accidental --alibi set

Medical is asked for after responsibility for shooting.  

The priority is not the victim here. 

Please note:  

Here is where we expect him to say he shot his wife, If it is 

his gun, using her name, and asking for help for her. 

If she owned a gun, and slept with it, it may be appropriate.  


If this is his gun, we expect him to take responsibility 

because his concern is not being blamed or not being 

blamed, but his wife, Margaret's, condition. 

 Instead, he speaks in short, broken sentences:  


1.  "Uh" is a pause to think.  This pause is noted as sensitive.  


"Excited utterance" is expected in a 911 call in which 

someone is bleeding to death and is in need of immediate 

medical intervention.  What has caused a pause?

Ask yourself:  if you had accidentally shot your wife, would

you need time to think of what you are going to say when 

asked, "What happened?"  

The pause is to indicate that this question, "What 

happened?" is sensitive to the caller.  It should not require

a pause, whether trained or untrained. 


2. "gunshot wound"  avoids saying "I shot my wife" or "my 

wife needs help!" 

He does not say who has the gunshot wound, or how she got 

it.  He does not even say who has the gunshot wound.  

2. "accidental" is not to say "I shot her by accident"  Please 

note that people do not generally lie outright, but are 

deceptive through missing information, including dropped 

pronouns.  We note what sentences are missing pronouns, 

and what sentences produce pronouns . 

3.  "Need medical asap" is without a pronoun. He does not 

say who is in need of medical help.  

He does not ask for help for her, specifically.  This is not 

expected.  This early in the call we looked for a complete 

social introduction which would tell us that it is a good 

relationship. 

Statement Analysis deals with not only what one says, but 


what one does not say:  

Note that "I just shot my wife, Margaret, by accident, she 


needs medical assistance asap!" would:

1.  Use the pronoun "I"


2.  Give the complete social introduction "my" showing 

ownership, "wife" is her title, and "Margaret" her name.  A 

complete social introduction indicates a good relationship. 

In this opening, he has indicated that there is a problem in 

their relationship. 

Their history will have to be explored by investigators if 


they wish to learn what happened. 


911: OK. Where are you shot at? 

Because of his failure to adequately inform the operator, she 

has to ask where he has been shot.   It is not clear to her 

what has happened.  This is coming from a man who has

 likely spent many years in this specific field of information.  

His wording appears careful and cautious.  We now look to 

see if he will give indication of a good relationship, and care 

for her life and get the flow of information to the operator.  

Statement Analysis does not deal with voice inflection, but 


the 911 operator does.  It may be that his inflection, with 

staid emotions, is causing her to ask questions.  

Listeners may question why he sounds calm and collected 


and will consider his training as a possible explanation.  The 

911 operator, however, must gather information and it is 

expected that someone with his training will freely help her 

in this manner. 



Chief: What’s that?


He is on extreme guard to withhold information.  


911: Where is the person shot at?


"Person" is gender neutral.  Thus far, the 911 operator does 

not know who has been shot nor who the shooter is, nor 

any detail of the case from a trained and decades long 

experienced lawman.  


Chief: In the back.


The subject gives the location of the wound. 


He does not say "in her back" with a pronoun to identify the 

victim.  This is a subtle distancing language which distances 

himself from the victim, but it also distances the wound 

from the victim.  


This is not expected.  


Linguistic Dispostion:  

Thus far, the victim is not a person.  


We cannot make her into a person for him.  

We believe him as we enter into his thinking, at this time, in

an emergency setting. 



He gives short answers.  Because he has yet to give a social 


introduction, he forces the operator to ask:  


911: Is it a male or female?


The 911 operator had to ask this.  This is a ridiculous 


question. 

She should not have had  to ask. 

 Here is a refusal to yield information.  We must now

consider this reluctance on his part consistent with the need

to pause and reflect on what to answer when asked what had

happened.


At this point, the caller is not working with the 911 Operator

to facilitate the flow of information to save his wife, the 

victim. 


Chief: Female.


This is all he says.  


This is a signal that he is not cooperating with the police. 

 Here is where he often hear the phrase "fully cooperating" 

making "cooperation" sensitive, and in need of description.

When police say "he is fully cooperating" it means that 

there is another type of cooperation in mind: that is, less 

than complete.  


He is cooperating with police, by answering the 911 


Operator's questions, but he is limiting his words carefully.  

It is right here, at this point, that the expectation is not 

"female" but "my wife" or "Maggie" or anything that "ups 

the level" of information. 


Here is where we expect him to now use the introduction 


since he has not used it yet.



He continues to avoid saying, "my wife, Margaret"  

We need him to use the instinctive "my" with the victim. 

Consider this point in human nature: 

It is not that he has avoided using the possessive pronoun 

"my"; 

he has overcome human instinct. 



  This is  another place where he could identify that it is his 

wife in  need of assistance. 


That he has not yet used his wife's name is distancing 

language indicating a poor relationship and/or a need to 

distance himself from her. 


This is not expected when there is a good relationship and 


the married couple are "one", in their minds and in their 

language. 

In a close, married relationship, the couple often feel like 


"one", so that when one suffers, they both suffer.  

Here, in the midst of a life or death trauma, he will not even 


use her name. 


At this point, it is not just "bad relationship" but something 

much more intense:


The victim has been de-personalized. 




This is not conclusive as we continue to wait for him to tell

the Operator of his connection to the victim ("my wife") 

which is instinctive in human relations.  It is to this point:  

the victim continues to be, in his linguistic perception or 

"his perception of reality", not a human being. 


Change of Language 




Recall how we sometimes see in murders (singular or mass) 

a de-personalizing or de-humanizing of victims specifically 

in the language.  


The Nazi party of Germany used this with children; 

teaching them that Jews and eastern races were "sub 

human"; that is to make the linguistic change allowing

for murder. They "harvested" (note the language) from 

their victims, as if the victims' property and life had 

been planted for such a yield.


Planned Parenthood calls children "fetus" rather than a 

child, for profit.  

In rallying women to their business, they employed 

 the same argument advanced for slavery ("my property") prior to 1865 in the United States.



Islamic terrorists teach children that Jews descended from 

"pigs and apes."  When you see a mother strapped with

bombs, sitting in a park with women and children, she 

is not "killing women and children" but in her verbalized

perception of reality:  sacrificing herself to her god by 

removing "pigs and apes" (Jews) or "infidels" (including 

Muslims who resist their demands) who are an insult to her 

god.  This is a powerful overcoming of parental and maternal 

instinct to preserve life. 


The writers for "Silence of the Lambs" highlighted this 

when they showed FBI Behavioral Analysis coaching 

the mother of a kidnapped adult daughter to repeatedly 

use her daughter's name.  The killer, needing to first 

starve his victim while preserving her skin, used the

chilling line, "it puts the lotion in the basket."  It is 

an unforgettably chilling line. 


What do all these examples have in common?


1.  They seek to justify. 


2.  They attempt to use a faux moral  high ground to justify 

action. 

Even in "ethnic cleansing" we see the morally charged 

word, "cleanse" within it. This is an attempt to justify. 

We look for it in language of criminal behavior. 

3.  They change language from its natural meaning. 


This is why we do not ask thieves in employment theft, 

"Did you steal?" because oftentimes the thief did not 

"steal" but "took" (morally neutral) 




911: How old is she? How old is she?


Chief: 58


He offers nothing more.  


He does not use her name.  

He answers the question in the shortest possible way. 

What else might he have said?


"She is 58."  Instead, "58" uses no pronoun.  This is 

distancing language. 

He might have mentioned something about her condition, as 


well, at this point. 

He does not.  



Statement Analysis:  According to the subject's own 

language we now know:

the victim is not

person. 

He did not shoot a person.  

He did not shoot his wife. 

In fact, from his own language, he did not shoot. 




*911: She’s shot in the back and in the side?

we do not know why the 911 operator made this 


assumption.  This is to be shot in either two locations, or 

that the bullet entered and exited (back to side).  



Chief: Yes…and numb in back. Come on. Let’s get them 

here.

It may be that he is not listening carefully as she has 

assumed two shots possibly.  (see note above). 

He does not ask for help specifically for her.  He has not 

used her name.  

In analyzing 911 calls, some guilty callers will ask for help, 

but not for the victim specifically.  Some will even say "help 

me!" in the call.


Ingratiation Factor in Analysis 
  

"Let's get them here" is as if he is part of the team, as in "Let 

us..."

He is not part of the team.  "Us" represents law 

enforcement, or "authority" or "the good guys."


His wife is bleeding near death 

beside him, because of his action.  This may be an attempt 

to portray himself as part of the help, not the cause.  


This is called "Ingratiation."

The need to "ingratiate" oneself into the company of another 

is to show us:

he needs to be seen as "the good guy."

The "good guy" principle  tells us the opposite. 


It is similar to a parent of a missing child who literally 

praises searchers for not finding his or her child.  This

need to be seen aligned with law enforcement reveals

his awareness that what he has done it "outside" the law

and outside those he represents. 

We continue to note that he does not ask for help for the victim of whom he has not identified. 



The word "Let's" is an abbreviation (casual) 



911: Somebody else is dispatching help. I need to get some 

more information from you. You said it was an accident?



Please note that "somebody else is dispatching help" is

 something the subject likely already knew.  This makes 

"Let's get them here" possibly sound artificial. 


Chief: Yes.


He gives no further information, causing her to ask more 

questions.  This is an example of one staying to script where

he knows, after decades of enforcing the law, working with

prosecutors and witnesses:  say as little as possible. 


Emotion


Recall that in Statement Analysis, we do not judge voice 
inflection to learn of his emotion.  Some will say, "he sounds so cold and indifferent" yet it could be training.  Instead, we look for the linguistics of emotion: simply put:  

What topic will produce a word of emotion?

Human Empathy


As World War II progressed, we learned of German army draftees committing suicide after carrying out orders of atrocities against civilians.

Even those who do not wish for abortion to be made illegal have recoiled at Planned Parenthood's selling of babies' body parts for profit, its race-based geography and its refusal to use anesthesia. 

History and life both teach the analyst about human nature. 

Depersonalization eliminates need for Human Empathy 

We do not see human empathy, that is, "human" if the victim was not "human."  

Therefore, the language changes to justify the inhumane action. 

We see this in criminal statements of all type as human nature uses this self defense mechanism in its need to justify action.  A common example that is popular is the "Virtue Signaling." 

This is particularly noteworthy for analysts when the virtue stand is unnecessary.  

It creates competition to see who will condemn the loudest or the most extreme.  From this we often find the guilt projected outwardly.  


#MeToo quickly joined with "my" truth as if truth is in the eye of the beholder, or more accurately, matches the feeling of the beholder. This need to "belong", when deceptive, leaves actual victims vulnerable to further doubts and even suspicion. 

We expect the language of human empathy to appear in some form. This is not the "terms of endearment" that signal very bad relationships.  This is actual wording that does not "express" human empathy, but engages it. 

For example:  

a.  Offer to describe the wound.  This would be a linguistic example of empathy for the victim, by the subject, which would allow the 911 operator to thus inform. 

b.  Describe her suffering 

We listen for the actual wording which shows that the victim is not only a real person, but has a connection to him, which, in turn, his human empathy drives him to expedite help for her, via information.






911: She was shot twice accidental?



That she was shot "twice"  is affirmed by the operator.  

The gun went off twice?  This is not something expected in 

a shooting where a trigger is pulled accidentally, by, for 

example, someone rolling over on it in bed and somehow a 

safety free firearm discharged.  


Chief: Yes.


The word "yes" is a strong response, but we do not know if 

he is saying "yes" to the "shot twice" part of the question, or 

"accidental" part.  This is why compound questions must 

always be avoided. 


Please note that we are also tracking the difference in 

context between "yep" and "yes."

Due to the limited information he has given her, she must 


now ask:  Who shot her?


The profile emerging is one of self protection and self

importance.  He is not carefully listening to the 911 Operator, but instead staying to
script.  "yes" is the shortest simplest answer in which he 
adds no detail.  This becomes heightened when we hear
him attempt to sound "helpful" rather than disinterested.  The disinterest is in the victim's status:  survival.

The overcoming of instinct along with the distinct absence of human empathy and need to control all suggest that our caller likely has as history of domestic violence. 

A trained law enforcement official with more than 30 years experience, and one who has gained rank, has used a single word answer to allow error to be part of the narrative of this case.  





911: Who shot her?


Chief: Me.



No explanation beyond this point. 

This is also not expected.  

Note that he does not say "Me, I shot her" or "I did, but by

 accident."

He takes ownership of shooting her with "me" rather than 

saying "the gun went off."

This will prove important to analysis and to the subsequent 

investigation.  


The priority remains self first, and he will resist, even 

against both instinct (man, husband) and training (high rank

law enforcement official) to fulfill his priority:

Protect himself by yielding only enough information to 

avoid consequence.  


Thus far, he has not used a single word of human empathy. 

Please consider that this is "congruent" with his linguistic 

disposition towards the victim:  his wife, Maggie is not

a person. 



Since he has given no explanation, she must 

now ask:  


911: How did you shoot her?




Note that the 911 operator did not say "why did you shoot 

her?" because she has clearly heard him say "accident", as it 

was a priority for him, coming even before the need for 

medical intervention in his order of speech.  


It would be interesting to interview this Operator.  

I have to date, not encountered a statement in which no 

possessive pronoun was used.  I would like to ask her about

her impressions and how she was "pulling teeth" to get a 

single point of data from him. 

What we have next is finally the account of "what 

happened" and it is here that we obtain our information.  







Chief: I was…the gun was in the bed. I went to move it…uh, 

put it to the side and then it went off.


There is a great deal of information contained here; more 

that what a blog entry will show.  Here are some basics of 

Statement Analysis for consideration. Those formally 

trained will recognize some of the data that is missing as 

well as the profile that emerges.  


a.  "I was" is broken off:  this is self-censoring.  It is an 

indication of missing information, deliberately withheld 

by the subject. 



Suppressed Information 


Generally, this phrase is used to describe memories in which

a subject cannot verbalize.  It is signaled by the phrase, "I

remember..." in open statements. 


"I remember as a boy going to..." indicates that the subject 

is accessing a point of time within experiential memory 

where he recognizes that there is more there, in this

memory, than he can recall. 

We can only report what we "remember", therefore, the 

phrase, "I remember" (in an open statement) is unnecessary 

wording.  This is the general sense of how we use the 

wording "suppressed memory" in Statement Analysis. 

The 911 caller is making an effort not to disclose information.  

This is challenging. 

He is on his guard, so much so, that he is not listening carefully to the questions and is giving short responses only.  He is hindering information. 

This takes effort. 

In his case, the effort is two-fold.

It is not only against human nature ("my" as in "my wife" and "my gun", which is addressed below) but also against his professional training. 

He should be spouting off information, both as a human (husband) and a law enforcement highly trained and advanced official.  

We have the 'suppression' of both instinct and training. 

This is to exert his will. 

It is to reveal one of a very strong will.  

Even in this most critical of time in life, whether viewed as an innocent man desperate to save his wife, or a guilty caller who had hoped to forever silence his wife, he shows remarkable control and a stunning lack of human empathy for the victim.  

He has overcome both instinct and training to preserve himself.  

Those who know him will recognize this trait within him. 


"I was" began with the pronoun "I", psychologically placing

himself strongly into this sentence.  Whatever he was about

to say was very likely to contain reliable information. 

He then stopped. 


This "self censoring" in the pronoun "I" further highlights:

a.  his priority to save himself 

b.  his self control exercised in a context where it would 

appear to be the exact opposite. 

In a domestic, words spoken can impact the heart rate, 

perspiration and hormonal response. Control lost, for but 

a moment, can forever destroy lives. 

Consider "Shaken Baby Syndrome" statements.  In just a 

moment of time, the crying baby was given a short violent 

shake and stopped crying.

And the baby was forever destroyed, as gray matter leaks from the ears and the child's cry is never heard again. 

What do such statements contain?

"I was trying to feed her and she would not stop crying..."

Justification.

It is as if to say:  

'If the baby would have stopped crying, I would not have had to shake her.  It is her fault.'


This is common in many crime settings.  


What was he going to say?


Whatever it was, he knew enough to stop himself.



"I was asleep"?


"I was cleaning it..."?

"I was moving it...?

With the pronoun "I" we would have seen some 


responsibility.  Instead, in the self censoring, he suppresses 

whatever he was going to say.  

b.  "the gun"  is not "my gun"


Note "the gun" and not "a" gun as first introduced, and,


 since he is chief of police, he does not say it is "my gun" 

which would take ownership of the gun.  

This means that there is something sensitive about 


ownership of the gun.  He is psychologically distancing 

himself from the gun. 

What is the point of this?

The point of this is found in the need to distance himself 

from possessive ownership of the gun.  


Avoidance of personal responsibility is sometimes seen in

the absurdity of blaming an inanimate object. 

The gun did not shoot his wife Maggie.  

The gun did not get up, walk over to the bed, climb in, point at his wife and pull its own trigger.



c.  Passivity and the gun.



Passivity in language conceals identity or responsibility.  


When an identity is not known, for example, passive 

language is appropriate.  

Guns do not go off by themselves:  one must pull the trigger.  


Guns do not go to bed.  Someone must put it there.  


In an accidental shooting, for example, where someone 


rolled over the gun while sleeping and caused it to go off, 

passive language would be appropriate.  

If the gun went off inadvertently, passive language is 

appropriate because one does not know how it went off, 

therefore, no responsibility is assigned. 

This is especially true if it is her gun, and she generally


 sleeps with it.  He does not say "my wife's gun" nor does he

 say "my gun."

This is distancing language from the gun.  


Next, we note  that he says


"the gun was in the bed" , which employs passive language. 


 This conceals or refuses to identify how the gun got into the


 bed.

This is important. 

If one of them rolled over and caused the gun to go off, the 


passivity of 

"the gun went off" is appropriate.  No one deliberately 


pulled the trigger making passive language appropriate. 

However, here, we find "the gun was in the bed"


 deliberately avoids saying who is responsible for putting 

the gun in the bed. 

This is a deliberate use of passive language which provokes


 the natural question:



"Who put the gun in the bed?" since guns do not go to bed


 by themselves  

Because it is the subject, himself, making this statement, it


 is an indication that he brought the gun to the bed, but does

 not want this to be known. 

Ownership of guns by Law Enforcement.  


We are possessive creatures and due to the nature of life


 saving, preservation of life, and many hours of practice, it 

is expected that a law enforcement officer will say "my" gun

 (just as he would say "my wife.")



In law enforcement, officers often report a close relationship


 (evidenced by language) with their gun.  This is no surprise 

since the gun may save his life, the life of others, and he

 spends a large number of hours in training and practicing

 with it. 

Psychologically, the gun is a balance that mitigates (not

neutralizes) hormonal response to incessant and unexpected

danger.  It is the single element of which most compromised

immune systems, psychological trauma and substance 

abuse stem from in law enforcement. It is why I repeatedly

call for increases in pay for law enforcement and the 

immediate cessation of all political influence upon hiring:

hire the best and brightest and pay commensurate. 

The job requires day to day elevation of situational 

awareness that taxes the human body and mind. Even 

in rural areas where there is low crime adds the increase

of the element of surprise.  

This is why the gun has "special" place in the language

of law enforcement. They "live with" the firearm. (we see

this commonly in the language of K-9 officers). 



 The possessive pronoun, "my", therefore, is not 

only expected, but highly expected, by someone in law 

enforcement, if the gun is his.  If it is not, it is appropriate to 

have it absent from the language. 

As police chief, if it is his gun, we expect him to take


 ownership of it.  



d.  Intentions


Please note:  "went to move it" tells us what he intended to 


do.  We let his words guide us. Deceptive people often tell 

us about intentions, hoping that we will interpret the 

meaning as completed.  Yet, we believe what the words tell 

us and follow the subject closely.  

Please also note what is missing from this response:  the


 pronoun "we"; that is, the instinctive pronoun that is used to 

describe unity and cooperation.  


Question:  Did he say he moved the gun and it went off?


Answer:   No


He only "went to" move it.  He does not say he moved it.  


Thus, he further distances himself from the gun.  It is within 


this need to distance himself (no possessive pronoun and 

passive voice) that we find an answer. 

A single two-letter word holds the key to understanding. 

It must be understood within the reliable start of "I" 

which indicated he was "psychologically" in this start 

of a sentence, but stopped himself from yielding critical 

information. 

Where was the gun?


"Went":  this word is important.  "I went to move it" means


 that he knew it was there.  This indicates intention, but not 

action.  

Where was he when he "went" to move it? 


Was he in the bed with her? 

Was he in a different room, realizing that it was left in the 

bed where she was sleeping?

Why did he need to move it?  What was it doing in the bed


 in the first place?

And...

why does he deliberately conceal the identity of the one who 

brought it to bed?

If his wife did it, it would not cause stress to say so, since it 


was an "accident"; but if he brought it to bed, he knows he 

is naturally going to have to explain why he brought it to 

bed.  

He knows that investigators will wonder: Did he bring it to 


bed in a threatening manner?

Our answer comes to us as we consider the factors together,

synthesizing the information and asking the question, 

"Where was the gun?"




911: Is she awake?


Chief: No.   Everybody was sleeping.

Please note: 

The question is "is she awake?" to which he says, "no", yet 


the 911 operator could hear her crying. 

What about his verb tense?


Is he thinking about when the shots happened?  


If so, there are new questions to be answered.  


Please note "everybody" is not defined.  


He has not used his wife's name;  this is distancing langue. 


 We must now learn who "everybody" is.  

We must learn  who is in the home as this is an indication


 that there are more people in the home than just he and his 

wife, and this is in the past tense. 

At the time of this call, it appears to be just the caller and 


the victim.  Yet, he went to the past tense, perhaps back to 

the time of the shooting. 

What caused him to say "everybody was sleeping"?


a.  If it was just the two of them, it may suggest 


editorializing (story telling)

b.  Was he thinking of someone else?

c.  Was someone else there previously?

d.  Had he plans to leave to meet someone else, a love 

interest, who was sleeping?

e.  Did they have a visitor earlier that night?

f.   Did one of them have plans to have someone over that 

night?

Clearly, "everybody was sleeping" is not to say "we" were 


sleeping.  "We" shows unity and cooperation. 

There is no "we" in his statement, which affirms just how 


bad the relationship is in the statement.  

Investigators need to learn if he was unfaithful to her, or if 


she was unfaithful to him, and if either was threatening to 

have an affair. 

This is very strange and not something expected from one 


who is alone with his critically bleeding wife. 

911: No, is she awake now?


The operator intuitively heard the verb tense.  She also


 heard the plurality of "Everybody" and seeks clarification. 

Chief: Huh?


The subject is distracted.  


911: Is she awake now?


Chief: Yes.


He answers with the strong "yes"


Please note that we are comparing his use of "yes", with the

 casual, "yep" which is something that is often found when 

one 'agrees' with another.  

911: Is she breathing?


Dispatch is asking questions because the subject is only


 answering specific questions and not giving any additional 

details.  In a marriage, this is most unexpected.  

Chief: Yes.


This is a strong response.  


911: And…103 Autumn Leaf. What’s your nearest 


intersection or street?

Chief: Uh we’re in Center Green 


This is the first use of "we" and the context is the location 


and not personal.  

After giving the 911 operator the location where they are at, 


she asks about the location of the gun:  

**At 1:32…911: Where’s the gun at?


Chief: Uhhh, geez I don’t know. I threw it to the side. It 


might be in the bed here. I don’t know.

The location of the gun is important for the safety of the 

responders.  

Note throwing the gun produced the pronoun "I" and he had 

the presence of mind to "throw it"; why the need to throw it?

Also, if he threw it, was this in anger?  staging?  


"Uh, geez":   the meaning of geez is surprise or annoyance. Which is it?


It does not make sense that it would be surprise, since this is a question that has to do with responders' safety. 


I feel it's the latter, since he is annoyed that he's being asked about the location of the gun.  He does not like being questioned.  He may feel that he is "above" such a question since he is the chief of police.  


 Chief: You having trouble breathing, Dear?


This is a term of endearment.  Investigators will need to

 learn if this was a usual term used by him, or something for 

the call.   It is spoken clearly into the phone and comes 

across well in the recording.  This will be compared to other 

things he says, including the volume of which the voice 

transmits.  

Please note that terms of endearment, in Statement Analysis, 


are often signals of a very bad relationship, as they are used 

to persuade.  This, however, is about written statements 

where someone might write, "I said "I love you" to her and 

kissed her goodnight and she went to sleep."  That the 

subject had the need to include "I love you" (similar to term 

of endearment) is flagged for possible bad relationship, as it 

may underscore the need to persuade the audience. 

Is the subject, here, using the term, "dear" to play to the audio?


Since she is lying in agony and "of course" she is having


 trouble breathing, this does not sound genuine, but may be

 an attempt to persuade the listener (police) of a tender and 

caring subject; yet that is not what the call reveals.  

He does not ask for help for her, specifically, something we 


flag in 911 calls where domestic violence is in question. 

He avoids using her name and her title of "wife", which is 


distancing language.  (at this point) 

He does, however, show concern for himself.  


This taken collectively may indicate that "dear" is indicative


 of a bad relationship, particularly due to context. 

911: Alright, I want you to…you are with her now?


Instruction was about to be given, but then the operator 


changes course to ask this question.  

Please note that the 911 operator did not assume that the


 caller was with his wife, which is unusual.  He did not even 

use her name or title (wife) which, even without training,

 the 911 operator will have a 'feel' for distancing language.  

She may have even been surprised that he was so close to

her to talk to her.  

The question is:  "You are with her now?"  Note his 


response.  He may have felt insulted by her question:  

Chief:  "What’s that? I’m the Chief of Police. It’s a…the bed, 


the gun is on the dresser.

1.  He answers her question with a question.  He is the one


 who sounded so distant from the victim, but when asked

 about it, he shows the sensitivity by answering a question 

with a question.  

If he did not hear her question, the response, "What's that?"


 is appropriate.  Yet, he then chooses to go on instead of 

waiting for her to repeat the question. 

He gives her an assertion that produces the pronoun, "I" in a 


call of which the pronoun "I" is not strongly used.  

2.  His affirmation:  


This is an arrogant statement. We now know more about 


him than we do the victim; the one in need of help.  

 He identifies himself, not as a police officer, but as the


 "chief of police", which is not what she asked. 

Remember in statement analysis:  when one goes beyond 


the boundary of the question  every word is important. 

That he is the "Chief of Police" is very important to him. 


 Please note:

he does not show verbal concern over his wife's condition. 


 He does, however, show concern over his own career. 

That his response is high minded must be noted.   This


 should cause investigators to consider past Domestic

 Violence.  High-minded and controlling are issues 

associated with D/V.  This is a call in which a wife has been 

shot by her husband, who, in the call, refuses to identify her 

by name or by the fact that she is his wife.  

He refuses to give her a title of "wife" but he gives himself


 the title " the Chief of Police."

This is far more emphasis than she was given, though she is 


near death.  

That he has a history of D/V should be learned, and will not 


be surprising if verified.  

He gets a title, but the one lying bleeding to death, does not. 


 This is not lost on the 911 operator who can hear the 

victim's moaning:  

911: OK. You’re the Chief of Police in Peachtree City?


Chief: Yeah, unfortunately. Yes.


"Unfortunate" is the condition of the 58 year old woman lying beside him, bleeding to death. 


yet for him, "unfortunate" is himself, due to the job he currently holds at the time of this call.


This is extremely calloused. 


In his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, "unfortunate" is his job status, but not his wife's precarious status of life and death.  


This is not expected.  


Here, we have the subject showing concern for himself. 


 This is not expected.   This may have prompted the next

 question: 


911: Alright, is this your wife?




It is strange for the operator to have to ask this question but


it is necessary.  She is hearing a depersonalization of a 

victim. It is not something generally heard with frequency 

and it is against human nature, itself. Her own awareness

is seen in the "agreement" words, "okay" and "yes" and a 
general attempt to placate him. 

Chief: Yes.


911: OK sir. Um, I do want to ask you some more questions 


about her health right now. Somebody else has already 

dispatched help so we’re not delaying that OK?

Chief: OK.


911: Is that her crying?




operator shows concern or "human empathy."  .  Also, did 


operator feel need to 

identify who it was that was crying, thinking that someone

 else might have been there, based upon his language?

Chief: Yes, she’s having trouble breathing now.




She is having trouble breathing "now"; did she have trouble


 breathing earlier?  Due to the seriousness of the injury, she

 likely did.  

Please note:  he knew that she had internal bleeding (below) 


911: OK.


**At 2:35…(you hear moaning/crying in background)


911: OK. (more moaning) This just occurred now right 


before you called?

Operator is suspicious of a possible delay.  


Chief: Yep..yep went off in the middle of the night.


Note "yep" instead of formal "yes."


Some people use "yep" when they are agreeing with 


someone else.  

We will note where he uses "yep" versus where he uses "yes."


I am concerned that this call was not made immediately 


after the shooting, based upon his response:

"yep" is repeated, as if 'agreeing' with the 911 operator



then taken with "in the middle of the night" rather than "just 

now" in his language.  

This suggests a delay in calling.  


This may be difficult to understand on the audio but the call 


should be right after the shooting.  "went off in the middle 

of the night" sounds more like editorializing, or story 

telling. 

Note that he even drops the pronoun "it" 


This is more distancing language.  


The passivity over a gun going off is expected if the subject 


does not know how it went off, but the dropped pronoun is 

not expected.  Let's say that one rolled over and the gun 

discharged, it would be passive, since the caller did not 

know which of them caused it, but might say, "it went off" 

with the pronoun, "it."  He wants to distance himself from 

the gun. 

"in the middle of the night" is not necessary because it just


happened.  This is something that sounds more like story 

telling.  


Element of Time in Timing


"Middle of the night" could cover a great deal of time.  The 


expected answer is "just now" and nothing else.  Even a 

slight delay for trying to stop the bleeding would still be an 

immediate response.  His need to editorialize may have 

confirmed the intuitive suspicion of the 911 operator. 

911: Is there any serious bleeding?


Chief: Well, it’s internal but yes there is.


She is in critical condition, shot in the back. The only 


answer to this question is "yes" 

He uses "yes" after the word "but"; note it is not "yep"


The word "but" refutes or minimizes that which preceded it.


  This may indicate that he knew there was internal 

bleeding.  Investigators should learn if there was a time 

delay in calling 911.  

"Well" is a pause to think.  This is not expected as he


 compares it (the word "but"), while recognizing it as 

internal.  

911: OK, is she completely alert?


Chief: Yes


"Yes" rather than "yep"


911: OK


Chief: And you already told me it was the back.


 Chief: She’s starting to have trouble breathing now so it 


must be internal.

It would be important to ask him about her breathing earlier 


(not in this call, but the investigative interview). 

911: OK. Is she on her back?


Chief: She’s laying on her stomach.


911: She’s laying on her stomach. OK. If you see any 


external bleeding, we’re going to apply direct pressure to 

that OK? Is she bleeding where you can see it?

Note the intuitive use of "we" which is always wise.  The


 word "we" reduces the tension that may exist between 

police and caller.  This operator does a good job.  

Chief: Yes.


The expectation is that with his background, he had already 


begun basic emergency care applying pressure to the 

wound. 

This is also "yes" and not "yep"


911: OK, I want you to get a dry clean cloth and I want you to apply direct pressure to the wound.


Chief: OK.


 (sound of moaning) Chief: Ok


911: Ok I want you to hold the cloth there. Do not lift it to 


look at it. Just keep applying pressure 

This would seem unnecessary but the operator, rather than asking if he has applied immediate care, instinctively instructs him to.  Remember: he has not given indication 

that the victim is a human being nor has he offered 
relevant information. 

Chief: (hard to understand)


would not one of his background have already put pressure on 
the wound?

911: Ok. You want them to enter through the front door?


Chief: don’t care if they come in the side door. It’s fine, I 


don’t care.

He should give the answer in which the victim is accessed 


in the quickest route.  That he does not care may be an 

attempt to sound cooperative, as if coming through a 

different door does not inconvenience him.

He should have told them to come in the most direct route.  


He indicates a need to persuade that he is a caring person 

who is so focused upon his wife, Maggie, that he would 

not care how they entered.  

This is not what is in his language. 

This is, however, insight into his personality.  Image 

consciousness is part of this call.  The only word indicating

human empathy is employed regarding his own professional

status. 


Chief: aLright, come on guys…get here.


This is still not to ask for specific help for the victim, who 


continues her status as non human. 


Chief: Yeah, I got the door open for them.


Here we see use of more wording than he afforded his 

victim. 

Chief: Oh my God.


Note the use of Divinity:  


He does not ask God to help or save his wife.  



911: What’s your name sir?


Chief: How did this happen?



Note the open question by the subject being asked out loud.  


Only he can answer this question  yet he asks it, anyway.  

This is another red flag.  



Unintended Recipient Principle


We recognize that that subjects often speak to an "unintended" recipient.  The "intended recipient" is the 911 operator.  The "unintended" is law enforcement and the legal memorial of this recording. 



911: What’s your name sir?


Chief: Will McCollum 


**At 4:15…911: Were you asleep also sir when it 


happened?

Chief: Yep,  are you alright dear? I know you are not alright. 


I mean, are you still breathing? Still alert for me?

"Yep" is not "yes" but more casual.  "Yep" is often used


 when one finds an answer within the question, to agree to.  

Please note:  he affirms that he was asleep when it 


happened, making it an accident where one rolls over in his 

sleep, yet only uses the weak "yep", rather than stronger 

"yes", which must be compared with:

"I went to..." contradicts being asleep. 


Regarding speaking to his wife:


She may have answered him harshly.  This may indicate that 


an argument took place before the shooting. 

911: Is there anybody else there with you guys?


That he said "everybody was sleeping" has likely prompted 


this question.  Since "everybody" was sleeping, who else is 

there?

Chief: No.


Did he say "everybody" was asleep earlier?  This is


 concerning.  It could point to the attempt to build 'a crowd 

of support' due to guilt and the need to share guilt. 

Guilty parties often feel that if others are around, they can


 spread the guilt out.  We see this in school children.  Yet,

 there was no one there but the caller and the victim, who's 

name is avoided.  

 Chief: Come on. Hurry, hurry, hurry.


Please note that he knows how the system works; dispatch 


while he is speaking.  

This is scripted or "staged", just as his other phrases, 


including

 "God" and "How did this happen?"" do.  

911: I hear them in the background. They are coming as fast 


as they can. Ok?

Chief: I can hear them.


911: Do we have that dry clean cloth on her wound?


This is intuitive.  She uses the word "we", as cooperation, 


instead of saying "Do you have that dry clean cloth on her 


wound?" revealing her own suspicion. 

To use "we" indicates a need for cooperation.  She does not 


sense he is cooperative and she has her doubts that he has 

tended to her wounds.   


Chief: Alright come on guys.


He is not engaged with the 911 operator. 



911: You see them sir?

**At 5:30 Chief: Right there on the dresser is the gun.


911: Is there an officer there?


Chief: Jamie is here, yeah.


Please note that he used the officer's name while avoiding 


his wife's name in the entire call.  

"Jamie" is a human being; the victim is not.  This is to stay 

within our principle of having confidence in the subject to 

lead us to the truth. 


911: Ok, Chief I’m going to let you go…



There are enough red flags in this call for police to consider 


the chief a suspect and seek to learn about the marital 

relationship's discord.  From this call alone, 

I conclude that their relationship is not good;


that he uses distancing language from her;


he uses distancing language from the gun;


he inappropriately uses passivity in language, avoiding the 


responsibility of how the gun got in the bed.  

He expresses concern for himself, but not for her, who's 


name he was unable to use in the entire call.  

If I did not write the word "Margaret", you would not have 


known her name.

If the 911 operator had not specifically asked, she would not 

have been identified as his wife.  

How does he get through the entire call without calling her 


his "wife", nor use her name?

He should be a suspect in this shooting.  The sensitivity


 indicates the foundation  in the relationship in the specific

context of shooting. 


Presuppositional Statement Analysis:



1.  Presume innocence.  Ask yourself, "What would I say?"


Could you make it through an entire 911 call without using


 the word "wife", in his shoes?


Could you make it through the entire 911 call without once


 using your wife's name? (or nickname)

Walk yourself through the call, putting yourself in his shoes.


  You have law enforcement background and may even use 

"cop speak", with such things as "ASAP"

Ask yourself what you might say if your wife was laying in


 the bed, internally bleeding from not one, but two gun shot 

wounds, and may not survive.  Loving her, would you care 

about yourself, or your job, or reputation? Would you need 

to "not care" which door paramedics enter through?

If you are married, work it through with your spouse. 



2.  Now, Presume a poor relationship, an argument, and a 


guilty caller.  Presume guilt.

Work through the statement again, presupposing that this 


was a domestic dispute in which he shot her twice.  

Follow the same as above, even working it through with


 your spouse. 

With presupposed guilt, does the language now "fit"?




Analysis Conclusion:




Regarding the shooting of his wife by accident:  Deception 


Indicated.

The caller is deceptive.  The shooting was not "accidental"

nor was he asleep when he shot her. 



His words show concern about himself and his career, and 


not for the victim.


The relationship is dehumanizing. 



His distancing language is something we normally would 

call "acute", yet, how it technically is described is this:

The caller's victim is not human.  This is to "depersonalize" 

his victim in an extreme manner. 


It is not just that  he was unable to use her name nor did he 

even use the word "wife" in the call, but it is against 

natural human instinct.  

His disdain is so deep, in this context, that he has changed 

her from a human being who is related to him by marriage

to an entity that even depersonalizes her body.  He did not 

shoot "her" in the back:  she does not "have" a back, in his

language. 

It is critical to accept the language given and not to project

our own thinking, via transplanted language or 

interpretation.  We must listen and submit to his verbalized

perception of reality at the time of this call.


He did not help the operator gain information but 


deliberately work against her. 

What appeared to be suppression of natural human instinct

continued to the point of admission:  the victim, in the eyes

of the shooter, was not a person. 






The Two-Letter Word 

Critical to understanding this is the location of the gun 

in context to both his words and his training and the type

of gun used. 


The gun was "in" and not "on" the bed. 

This is rare. 

Even in a rape statement where the victim did not leave,

we find that she did not sleep "in" the bed (with the rapist)

but in her language, she was "on" the bed.   It is found in cases, for example, where the rape victim is young, frightened and literally disassociates (it is found in the language) in order to survive.  

The claim that "she was not raped; otherwise she would have not stayed with him" is not universally applicable. The rape victim did not sleep "in" the bed, that is, with the rapist, but "on", temporary, and not of the essential survival nature of sleep. It is, in this context, also to fulfill our Principle on "location of sleep" in analysis. 

Our caller put the gun (seen the the passivity employed) in the bed, deliberately, and shot his wife. In what he began with "I" he had to self censor.  He was on his guard through out the statement and this point of great sensitivity is coupled with an inanimate object being given "life."  

The one who gives inanimate object "life", is the human connection. 

 The element of time within his statements tell us of delay:  he expected her to die. This is why he waited to call 911. 

  
He deliberately shot her from the position of the gun being

"in" the bed, (not "on" the bed), that is, in a specific place in 

which he could 

best make this appear to be an accidental shooting. 

It was not. 

As analyst, instructor  and detective (ret) Steve Johnson 

pointed out, this gun was not "on" the bed, but "in" the 

bed in a place where the need for pressure (5-7 lbs) would 

be necessary for firing right at the victim. This yielded

much information from the professionals.  It must be 

taken in context of both deception and Linguistic 

Disposition: 


The victim is not a person. 



This is the linguistic revelation from the shooter himself.

At no time in this call is the victim his wife, Maggie, or 

even a person. 



He did not shoot a person. 



He shot "a" non human.  Not in "her" back, 

but in its back. 

It is not a surprise that the caller screened 


phone calls to the victim and exercised control over the flow of information, just as he did in this call.  It is within the psycho-linguistic profile as well as likely evident in a 

history of Domestic Violence (likely via threat) and narcissistic self protection. 

The analyst must consider the points of analysis as separate 
and distinct.  In the conclusion, they must now all be put
back together for one portrait. 

The human connection of inanimate object being given human body posture and the entrance of passive voice (consistent) cannot be separated.  The overall deception must be seen in unity with deliberate working against the 911 operator to hinder information. 

Thus these points then come under the single heading within deception:  the depersonalization of a victim in justification. 

It is a startling glimpse into the mind of an attempted murderer's own understanding of justification in human nature. 


Statement Analysis Training Opportunities 



For training in deception detection as well as profiling and anonymous author identification, please contact Hyatt Analysis Services.

We offer seminars, including advanced seminars, and joint seminars (with Det. Johnson and Hand Writing Analysis), as well as specific training for Sex Crimes Units and social services. 


Our course, the "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done at home, at your pace and comes with 12 months of e support to check progress, homework and testing. 

Those who enroll are eligible for ongoing monthly training. Successful completion of the Complete Statement Analysis Course is the prerequisite for the Advanced Course. 

Tuition payment plans available for Law Enforcement and Military.  








20 comments:

ima.grandma said...

*911: She’s shot in the back and in the side?

Chief: Yes…and numb in back. Come on. Let’s get them here.

How does he know she is numb in her back? She is the only one that can verify she has no feeling there. Doctors have systematic methods to assess neurological  damage by testing reflexes even when the victim is unconscious. Did he perform some sort of trauma triage before calling 911? How does he assess her condition with certainty? She must have been alert enough at one point to tell him this but now she isn't able to speak, only crying and moaning.

ima.grandma said...

Hypothetically: What if the gun really was 'in' the bed? If Chief and Maggie had a long night of heavy drinking and aggressive arguing, there is a possibility that Maggie was afraid as she knew his patterns of violence and abuse. Perhaps Chief had made suicidal threats that night or in the past. What if Chief had fallen asleep (passed out) in a separate room before her and she took the gun to keep it out of his reach until he sobered up. She now felt safe to fall sleep herself and placed the gun beside her, under the covers, for safe keeping. Chief wakes up and notices his gun is missing. He doesn't see the gun in plain sight in the room she was sleeping in. He frantically tries to locate the gun under the covers,  feels it blindly and trying to retrieve it, the gun accidentally fires.

ima.grandma said...

Addendum: she wakes up as he is feeling around, she moves, Chief is startled and grabs gun In a familiar way and fires.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Could someone please look at this short clip of Ted Bundy proclaiming his innocence, & going entirely on his words (not who he is, not his body language, not his odd laughter), what do people think about his denial of guilt based only on linguistics?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tf1II4uRLXE

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
Off Topic:

it isn't a clean statement as well as short so not enough to do much with. the video is too edited to work with.

he does not give a reliable denial. the fact that he doesn't address any of the claims directly is not good. what little is there has indicators of deception.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for looking at it. I understand what you are saying. The most "reliable" denial he gives is "I didnt do these things".
Here is a less edited video where he gives other denials. This may be irrelevant to SA, but I dont think Bundy is "charming" or a "chameleon"...I believe what we see in these interviews is his real personality which is awkward & kind of socially retarded. Please look at the video.
Also, if anyone knows about criminal psychology/profiling etc, would Ted Bundy completely lack empathy? Would Ted Bundy, for example, once he had become a violent killer, have been capable of for example, SAVING someone from being attacked like the way he saved a boy from drowning when he was much younger & the way he chased down a purse stealer as a young adult? Would Ted Bundy, once he became a violent killer, have ever SAVED someone from being attacked?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AEWsxCrMM1U

Anonymous said...

Also, the "confessions" he made shortly before his execution to try to "buy himself time" are unreliable linguistically & when he gave investigators step by step maps to locate remains from his alleged killings, they would dig up the whole area & find nothing.

Anonymous said...

Please someone check this out: Listen to one of Ted's "confessions" that he gave 7 days before his execution. He calls it a "story". At 11:45, after he has confessed to one of the killings he says that the day after the killimg, he went nack to check out the site, and says "I half-expected that she might not even be there. That somehow that I HADNT EVEN KILLED HER."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wgLOt4CbrB0

Lucia D said...

Fascinating analysis, chilling indeed. The gall and inappropriateness of him asking his wife
"Are you alright Dear " after he just shot her twice is shocking. Almost as if he is mocking her or taunting her. And this police chief has been trusted with lots of power and authority over others. Scary stuff.

Peter Hyatt said...

upcoming...

sheriff Israel

GeekRad said...

I can't believe that not once did he say her name and how long it took him to say it is his wife.That had to raise some red flags with the Operator.

ima.grandma said...

Yes. I've been wondering when Peter would go there. Sheriff Israel's deliberate words and actions have drawn visible and vocal reactions from all segments of society. Are we finally paying attention? This issue will likely become a dominant topic of discussion in many arenas.

Dave said...

Peter wrote, "#MeToo quickly joined with "my" truth as if truth is in the eye of the beholder, or more accurately, matches the feeling of the beholder. This need to "belong", when deceptive, leaves actual victims vulnerable to further doubts and even suspicion."
This is what raised doubts for me in Ariana Kukors' sex abuse allegations. She writes:
"To those in the swimming community, if you've heard the rumors about me, you may have been wondering if and when I’d find the courage to speak my truth.
This is the truth."
Had she written simply '... find the courage to speak.' I would not have been so alerted to look for deception.

Dave said...

In the current discussion, I couldn't help but notice all the time the chief is wasting while the operator is trying to pull information from him, while he's apparently NOT doing anything to try to stop the bleeding.
It seems even law enforcement personnel have trouble "fooling" a 911 call, like the SWAT team member a couple weeks back who'd been "messing around with the laser".

General P. Malaise said...

"everybody was sleeping"

could it be that he didn't want to say "we" or "my wife and I", more distancing?

Anonymous said...

former chief married 4 times, twice to the now paralyzed victim, now ex, and he got one
year of probation. In Georgia.

There is a large story behind Isreal and previous problems with/in his department.
And the bho and holder and federal money made available if schools didn't report
problems at school committed by non-whites.

Anonymous said...

How are school children protected in Israel?

Trudy said...

Ya ya. But what did the trained professionals from Mesa say about Davey Blackburn?

Red meat said...

"And the bho and holder and federal money made available if schools didn't report
problems at school committed by non-whites."

Stoneman Douglas is pretty white, low poverty, and relatively successful academically. Doubtful it gets much federal money to lose. And most relevant, Cruz was expelled from the school, so school admin did officially discipline him and it would count in their stats.

He misbehaved and they kicked him out.

The Police though. POLICE were called to his house 39 times yet Cruz was still all clear to buy an assault rifle.

Habundia Awareness said...

Thanks for sharing this great and extended lesson.


"Uh" is a pause to think."
You asked if one would have need to pauze to think what they were going to say if their wife (husband) was being shot. I could think that the stress and panic (if indeed accidental, even if not but that could it be for other reasons too, fear to get caught) one could feel when finding their spous being shot accidental that could cause one to use 'uh' to start their scream for help. Because they can't think clearly at that moment and need a pause (uh) to be giving clear information so help can be send fast.
That is not why this chief is using 'uh' for though (i think)

@ima_grandma.....if it really would have been an accidental shooting in the way you described it, why would he then show zero concern for the victim, who was his wife. Why would he give as little information as he did and hide (by not saying) that the victim who was shot by accident, was his wife. If it indeed was being done accidentally, then there would be guilty feelings, some guilty conscious about the terrible 'accident'that happened (a loved one was shot accidentally by oneself)and you would be doing whatever you could to 'make up what went wrong' (by getting help as soon as possible)
The victim layed on her stomach

We also know that he didn't provided medical help to his wife. When the dispatcher told him to press a clean cloth on the wound he told her he was doing that........but then he told her that he 'had opened the door' (after she had asked him how the paramedics needed to enter the house).....i think the operator understood this and that's she asked him again.

Another example of LE that isn't who he pretends to be...........there are so many of them (unfortunately they ruin the reputation of those who are real and do have the 'right' (within the law) morals and principles........this one obviously has not!